Thanks very much for the definition of construct. That was simple.So it is the participle that makes the verb a noun, not the construct. The construct just makes it possessed by the following noun.

Is it possible that the participle could be a noun like an English participle: "the turning away of"Then the construct וּלְשָׁבֵי would be literally: and for sin's turning away, which would have LXX's and Paul's meaning.

The difficulty lies in the meaning of ולשבי פשע , is the root of שבי really שוב or is it something different?

I mentioned earlier that I had read Isaiah 59:20 to read as “…and for the captives of rebellion in Jacob…” I suspect that when the Masoretes came across this verse, their main problem was not the meanings of the words, but that they had no theological understanding of the concept of “captives of rebellion”. As a result, they pointed it not as “rebellion’s captives”, rather as ”those who turn back rebellion”. It’s possible that the translators of the LXX also didn’t understand that concept.

For us who follow the New Testament, we have the parallel passage in John 8:34 where it talks about a “slave of error”. That makes the passage in Isaiah be understood as “A redeemer will come for Zion and for rebellion’s captives in Jacob”. Is this New Testament theological understanding of the verse the correct one?

As for Paul, did he have this verse in mind, or was he paraphrasing other verses?

Yeah, all in Latin. But at the moment (especially until the Hexapla Project actually produces anything), the only major source for Hexapla readings.

Is it possible that the participle could be a noun like an English participle: "the turning away of"Then the construct וּלְשָׁבֵי would be literally: and for sin's turning away, which would have LXX's and Paul's meaning.

Well quite a lot of times, a participle form of a verb is practically undistinguishable from the noun.

In fact several LXX readings (sorry, not got any examples off my head) translate where the Masoretes pointed participles as nouns. Pretty sure Karl and I discussed this in a thread on here somewhere...

It’s possible that the translators of the LXX also didn’t understand that concept.

Possibly, though it looks like none of the following Greek translators understood it too differently.

In my studies on the Hexapla, it's almost as if the Masoretes had Aquila's Greek version in front of them when they were marking the vowel-points - he was so literal (making even interlinears look tame!) it doesn't make for good Greek reading; it does make doing a Hebrew retroverted version easier though, so would be easy to produce vowel-points from Aquila's Greek.

For us who follow the New Testament, we have the parallel passage in John 8:34 where it talks about a “slave of error”.

Do we have any other passages that we can think of where we have something akin to 'slave/captive/prisoner of sin/error'? A few more examples would certainly help!

As for Paul, that he's quoting the LXX Isaiah 59:20 almost word for word, and then continues to quote LXX Isaiah 59:1a straight after in Rom 11:27 (καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη), it would be somewhat strange for this not to be from Isaiah 59:20.

Saying that, after quoting Isaiah 59:21a, Paul quotes Isaiah 27:9c (ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν), which if we look at 27:9a-c in the LXX, is almost a parallel to Isaiah 59:20-21a:

SteveMiller wrote:Is it possible that the participle could be a noun like an English participle: "the turning away of"Then the construct וּלְשָׁבֵי would be literally: and for sin's turning away, which would have LXX's and Paul's meaning.

Well quite a lot of times, a participle form of a verb is practically undistinguishable from the noun.

In fact several LXX readings (sorry, not got any examples off my head) translate where the Masoretes pointed participles as nouns. Pretty sure Karl and I discussed this in a thread on here somewhere...

My question is about the meaning that BHebrew gives to participles that are nouns.In English when a participle is a noun, it means an action or a process, i.e. the turning away of sin, the selling of a house.But in BH a participle that is a noun is the person who does it. So the participle form of "turning away" would be "one who turns away". Is it possible that a BH participle could have a noun meaning like English does?Is it possible that the verse could be translated : And the redeemer will come for Zion and for the turning away of sin in Jacob.?

It’s possible that the translators of the LXX also didn’t understand that concept.

Possibly, though it looks like none of the following Greek translators understood it too differently.

I read it that the LXX was different than the other 3 Greek translations. LXX says that the redeemer will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.The other 3 say the redeemer will come for those turning way ungodliness in Jacob.

I sense that ולשבי פשע is is more than "those turning back ולסבי from crime", implying moreover repentance and a returning to the fold, namely, "those coming back from crime". This is what we call today doing תשוּבה.

Speaking of Paul, I think it is fair to assume he had access to the Hebrew, and being the finest rabbinic mind of the day, knew it quite well. If the Greek is to be trusted as that which Paul dictated, then I would have no problem with the idea that Paul agreed with the LXX reading, and believed that it was faithful to the Hebrew.

Is it possible that the participle could be a noun like an English participle: "the turning away of"Then the construct וּלְשָׁבֵי would be literally: and for sin's turning away, which would have LXX's and Paul's meaning.

Well quite a lot of times, a participle form of a verb is practically undistinguishable from the noun.

When a participle is a noun, it usually refers to an actor or an action. In fact, I question whether the participle is ever used as a verb in Biblical Hebrew prior to the Babylonian Exile. Translation is not understanding, and it seems that many times that the use of the participle as a gerund (which is a noun, not a verb) is rather awkward in English, better translated as a verb, but makes good sense in context in Hebrew.

S_Walch wrote:

For us who follow the New Testament, we have the parallel passage in John 8:34 where it talks about a “slave of error”.

Do we have any other passages that we can think of where we have something akin to 'slave/captive/prisoner of sin/error'? A few more examples would certainly help!

How about Romans 6:16–17, 20, 2 Peter 2:19?

S_Walch wrote:As for Paul, that he's quoting the LXX Isaiah 59:20 almost word for word, and then continues to quote LXX Isaiah 59:1a straight after in Rom 11:27 (καὶ αὕτη αὐτοῖς ἡ παρʼ ἐμοῦ διαθήκη), it would be somewhat strange for this not to be from Isaiah 59:20.

Saying that, after quoting Isaiah 59:21a, Paul quotes Isaiah 27:9c (ὅταν ἀφέλωμαι αὐτοῦ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν), which if we look at 27:9a-c in the LXX, is almost a parallel to Isaiah 59:20-21a:

These are why I’m open to the idea that the MT consonantal text has become corrupted.

It is my understanding of Biblical Hebrew that in order to get “the redeemer comes … and the turning away of rebellion …” that the second verb should be an infinitive, not a participle. Any thoughts on that?

SteveMiller wrote:

S_Walch wrote:Not too sure, but my point was that though the Masoretes pointed שָׁבֵ֥י as a participle, it could actually just be a noun that they've pointed incorrectly.

The possible meaning of BH participles is a good one for me to research.

These are notes concerning my musings on the participle, if you can improve on them, I’d be glad to hear about improvements. This may give you a start.

Participle: when it can be translated as a verb in speech, it can be translated using the present (Genesis 37:16, Deuteronomy 30:16) (this is the way it is used in modern Israeli Hebrew), in the future (Genesis 17:19, 19:13, Deuteronomy 3:21, 4:14, 30:18, 2 Kings 22:16, Isaiah 5:5, Jeremiah 38:22–3, 2 Chronicles 18:24) and in the past (Jeremiah 38:26, Zechariah 2:2 (1:19), 2:7 (3), 4:1, 4–5, Nehemiah 6:17, 12:38, 2 Chronicles 32:11). The participle is inflected the same way as a noun, and as such, it may actually be a noun that refers to the action rather than to the actor as is typical of other nouns. It is often used as a noun in Hebrew in contexts where in English a verb would be used, hence the noun is translated as a verb.• Participle often used in the same manner as a noun, often is a noun.• Participle can have the force “as [you] are [doing]. 1 Kings 20:36, Daniel 9:20 In other words, while doing an action, another event happens.• Related to the above, has the force “when [someone] did [something]” then something else happened, Genesis 27:34• Participles can answer purpose, why someone is there? What is his purpose for being there? An example is Genesis 37:16 where his purpose for being in that location was to look for his brothers.• Participles can indicate ability, as in 2 Kings 2:19 “…as you can see…”, literally “as you are seeing” and 2 Kings 18:26 “…we can listen (to Aramaic)…”, verse 29 “…Hezekiah is not able…”.• A participle in the Piel binyan often has the force of a place where an action takes place, e.g. Isaiah 30:14 מכתת the place where repeated hammering takes place, namely a metal smithy (in this case a blacksmith’s), a place where one is confident Proverbs 14:25 and a mortar where one grinds grain Proverbs 27:22.

SteveMiller wrote:

S_Walch wrote:

SteveMiller wrote:Is it possible that the verse could be translated : And the redeemer will come for Zion and for the turning away of sin in Jacob.?

Yes it can I believe. I in fact like that translation.

Is my translation possible even though the participle is plural?

The fact that שני would be plural if it were from שוב is one of the problems I have with the traditional translation. It’s equally a problem with your translation. That the noun there is a plural, that is one of the reasons I considered “captive” as the translation.

Jemoh66 wrote:Speaking of Paul, I think it is fair to assume he had access to the Hebrew, and being the finest rabbinic mind of the day, knew it quite well. If the Greek is to be trusted as that which Paul dictated, then I would have no problem with the idea that Paul agreed with the LXX reading, and believed that it was faithful to the Hebrew.

There’s no question in my mind that Paul knew his Hebrew Scriptures.

As far as Paul is concerned, I have heard others claim that Paul at times made his own translations into Greek, unfortunately they didn’t list verses where that happened.

Where I have trouble is that the present MT text, the LXX, and Paul’s statement all are different today.

The idea that salvation comes out of Zion is referenced by Jesus in John 4. I expect that such an idea is also found in Tanakh somewhere, I haven’t looked for it.

The idea that the redeemer is to take away rebellion from Jacob is central to the teaching of Christianity, therefore is definitely written in Tanakh. So it’s possible that Paul paraphrased other verses and combined them.

It’s possible that both the translators of the LXX and Paul had different Hebrew texts than what we have today.

Without solid evidence (extant MMS) all we can do is speculate. Speculation is not evidence.